Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, has for decades been a tireless campaigner for science and against superstition. He is widely known for his exposure of the tricks used by self-professed ‘God-Men’ and gurus and has often been on Indian television explaining the everyday science behind supposed miracles.

After one such exposure – he pointed out that the “blood” oozing from a statue of Christ at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai was in fact water from a leaky pipe – the Catholic Church of Mumbai made a formal complaint about him to the Mumbai police. He stands accused of “deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community”, an offence under Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code. No arrest warrant has been issued but the case is "cognisable" meaning the police can arrest without warrant at any time. He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody. If he is arrested he will therefore most likely be detained in jail until court proceedings are concluded, which could take several years. Fearing arrest, he dares not stay long at home or work.

He investigated the claim that water or blood was flowing from a statue and quickly discovered it was a leaky sewage pipe. People had been collecting and drinking the water. He likely literally saved lives, and they're rewarding him with persecution and harassment.

One of Spain's leading underground artists is due to appear in court today facing up to a year in prison over a film short he made in 1978 on "how to cook Jesus Christ".

Javier Krahe has been taken to court by a Catholic legal association, the Centro Juridico Tomas Moro, for "offending religious feelings" – a little-known offence. The Catholic association says the law has never before been applied in Spanish legal history.

How can Spain, a modern, western nation, part of the EU, even consider trying to send someone to prison for a year for a film made 30+ years ago? There's no benefit to society, its going to cost them tons of money(which incidentally they do not have) to prosecute him, and realistically will just likely give him fame which he craves anyway. Not to mention the complete lack of "justice".

I fully expect this kind of madness from the women marginalizing nations with religious governments run exclusively by a rich group of royalty, but it's quite shameful when it happens in "modern" democratic nations like Spain... I am less surprised at it happening in India which may be democratic but incredibly corrupt.

I know Ireland has blasphemy laws on the books but they've never been dumb enough to try and use them as far as I know in modern times.

Anyone else thinks that these are literally human rights violations that these governments are encouraging/facilitating and directly allowing?

Clearly some people in those governments, District Attorney's offices and police forces believe that those laws should be enforced, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there are those here that agree.

Also I asked the direct question of "Anyone else thinks that these are literally human rights violations that these governments are encouraging/facilitating and directly allowing?"

From my understanding (which, I acknowledge, may be imperfect), the United States is somewhat unique in that the authors of its founding documents deliberately enshrined protection from religious persecution--including the persecution of a non-religious minority by a religious majority--into the framework of its government.

[b]He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody.

It's not that bizzare considering the history of religious violence in that country... the India/Pakistan partition, and most recently the Gujarat massacre.

The concept of arresting people for offending others is no different than the 'fighting words' doctrine in US law. Different people/nations have different interpretations of what counts as 'fighting words'. Whoda thunk!? The aim is to avoid violence and/or touchy subjects. It's no different than restrictions on Nazi-associated speech in several western European countries (see below).

Quote:

it's quite shameful when it happens in "modern" democratic nations like Spain.

Your expectations have a poor basis in reality.

Quote:

I am less surprised at it happening in India which may be democratic but incredibly corrupt.

What does corruption have to do with this case? You think Catholic associations are paying the police money to harass him? If so, [citation needed].

Quote:

I know Ireland has blasphemy laws on the books but they've never been dumb enough to try and use them as far as I know in modern times.

[b]He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody.

It's not that bizzare considering the history of religious violence in that country... the India/Pakistan partition, and most recently the Gujarat massacre.

The concept of arresting people for offending others is no different than the 'fighting words' doctrine in US law. Different people/nations have different interpretations of what counts as 'fighting words'. Whoda thunk!? The aim is to avoid violence and/or touchy subjects. It's no different than restrictions on Nazi-associated speech in several western European countries (see below).

Quote:

it's quite shameful when it happens in "modern" democratic nations like Spain.

Your expectations have a poor basis in reality.

Quote:

I am less surprised at it happening in India which may be democratic but incredibly corrupt.

What does corruption have to do with this case? You think Catholic associations are paying the police money to harass him? If so, [citation needed].

Quote:

I know Ireland has blasphemy laws on the books but they've never been dumb enough to try and use them as far as I know in modern times.

But they're dumb enough to ban abortion for religious reasons.

There are plenty of reasons to ban abortion other than religion.The atheists/agnostics are responsible for just as many if not more deaths than any crusades. WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

There are plenty of reasons to ban abortion other than religion.The atheists/agnostics are responsible for just as many if not more deaths than any crusades. WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Hitler was a gnostic Catholic, Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox seminarian, Mussolini was actually an atheist before reconciling with Catholicism, Roosevelt was an Episcopalian, Truman was a Southern Baptist (figures he'd drop the fucking A-bomb), and Japan was ruled by, according to Imperial Shinto, a literal God-Emperor descended from Amaterasu-omikami.

There, historical facts addressed. The thread can proceed without going down that particular path of retarded.

Edit: Wait, let's continue. Nazi Germany was 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. Italy was Catholic with middling numbers of "not Catholic". Fascist Spain? Catholic. As in, State Fucking Religion Catholic. The Soviet Union had a stated goal of eliminating religion if it weren't for those pesky:

50 million Russian Orthodox2.5 million Georgian Orthodox3.8 million Autocephalous Orthodox4 million Armenian Apostolics5.3 million Catholics19,000 Jehovah's Witnesses45 million Muslimsand 4 million Jews

The USSR: Worst. Atheist. Nation. EVER.

Side note: have you ever stopped and asked yourself why there are so few Georgian Orthodox? It's because the SOVIET RED ARMY, at the behest of the Russian Orthodox Church, burned them to the ground until 1943 when they were granted independence from the Russian Orthodoxy IN THE MIDDLE OF WORLD WAR FUCKING II.

Now, Hitler is a wild card. He wasn't an atheist, but despite obvious Gnostic leanings and a Catholic upbringing he was Christian in the same way Mormons are. He'd take the Bible, then start making shit up and sell it to the masses at big fucking speeches. He was an anti-semetic Joseph Smith with a teeny, tiny mustache.

That's right, I godwin'd Mormons.

However Hitler was quite religious. He recognized the divinity of Christ, although then he went all weird with the whole "Aryan Christ" thing. He felt that atheism was an integral part of Communism. Which is funny since, you know, the tens of millions of not-atheists in the USSR led by a nut who'd trained to be an Orthodox priest.

I'm still convinced that Stalin hated the Church because of his student loans. That's why he was kicked out of the seminary in the first place. Failure to pay his tuition. Then the loan went into default, his credit tanked, and rather than consolidate or work a second job he decided to go all schizo and start a pogrom against *insert religious minority of the week here*.

China and Japan? That was just a continuation of the whole Buddhism v. Shintoism thing. That had only been going on for about a thousand years. Which is funny, since in Japan the two religions had joined around 600AD. Still, both Chinese factions were very, very Buddhist. Meanwhile the Japanese were very, very Shintoist. There was much murder and raping, as the two groups are wont to do.

So yeah, WWII is steeped in religion. Which you would know, if you had ever bothered to read a history book.

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Probably not. But if you add in Mao and Stalin's contribution outside of WWII you could make a stronger case. Maybe taking the Great War out the mix, or adding it to the other side of the equation might help, as well. Gott might be mit uns, but there is no way to paint that a religious war.

In my more controversial moments I like to point out that science has killed far more people than religion and atheism combined.

There are plenty of reasons to ban abortion other than religion.The atheists/agnostics are responsible for just as many if not more deaths than any crusades. WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Are you seriously going to try and push this argument?

dasein

This. Are you implying they did this stuff BECAUSE they didn't believe in god?

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Probably not. But if you add in Mao and Stalin's contribution outside of WWII you could make a stronger case. Maybe taking the Great War out the mix, or adding it to the other side of the equation might help, as well. Gott might be mit uns, but there is no way to paint that a religious war.

In my more controversial moments I like to point out that science has killed far more people than religion and atheism combined.

Post in thread that involves debate, fail to read previous post refuting the point of an earlier one. And by refuting, I mean nuking from orbit just to be sure that said earlier post is never fucking spoken of again.

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Hitler was a gnostic Catholic, Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox seminarian, Mussolini was actually an atheist before reconciling with Catholicism, Roosevelt was an Episcopalian, Truman was a Southern Baptist (figures he'd drop the fucking A-bomb), and Japan was ruled by, according to Imperial Shinto, a literal God-Emperor descended from Amaterasu-omikami.

There, historical facts addressed. The thread can proceed without going down that particular path of retarded.

Edit: Wait, let's continue. Nazi Germany was 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. Italy was Catholic with middling numbers of "not Catholic". Fascist Spain? Catholic. As in, State Fucking Religion Catholic. The Soviet Union had a stated goal of eliminating religion if it weren't for those pesky:

50 million Russian Orthodox2.5 million Georgian Orthodox3.8 million Autocephalous Orthodox4 million Armenian Apostolics5.3 million Catholics19,000 Jehovah's Witnesses45 million Muslimsand 4 million Jews

The USSR: Worst. Atheist. Nation. EVER.

Oohh, numbers. My mum left the catholic church because they would not let her marry my dad unless he converted to their faith. Which he would not. She ain't been to mass or confession in well over 50 years. And yet every census, down goes the C word. Now she might be the only person in the whole wide world who does that. But I doubt it. For many people, religious identity is more an expression of race or culture than a subscription to a canon of beliefs.

Ascribing motivation to religion, on the basis of a tick in a census form box, is a stretch.

There are plenty of reasons to ban abortion other than religion.The atheists/agnostics are responsible for just as many if not more deaths than any crusades. WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Are you seriously going to try and push this argument?

dasein

This. Are you implying they did this stuff BECAUSE they didn't believe in god?

Of course he isn't. He is saying, clearly, I would have thought, that if such behaviour is common to both the faithful and religious alike, that we could productively look to a deeper cause than either of those, alone, to explain this shit.

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Hitler was a gnostic Catholic, Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox seminarian, Mussolini was actually an atheist before reconciling with Catholicism, Roosevelt was an Episcopalian, Truman was a Southern Baptist (figures he'd drop the fucking A-bomb), and Japan was ruled by, according to Imperial Shinto, a literal God-Emperor descended from Amaterasu-omikami.

There, historical facts addressed. The thread can proceed without going down that particular path of retarded.

Edit: Wait, let's continue. Nazi Germany was 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. Italy was Catholic with middling numbers of "not Catholic". Fascist Spain? Catholic. As in, State Fucking Religion Catholic. The Soviet Union had a stated goal of eliminating religion if it weren't for those pesky:

50 million Russian Orthodox2.5 million Georgian Orthodox3.8 million Autocephalous Orthodox4 million Armenian Apostolics5.3 million Catholics19,000 Jehovah's Witnesses45 million Muslimsand 4 million Jews

The USSR: Worst. Atheist. Nation. EVER.

Oohh, numbers. My mum left the catholic church because they would not let her marry my dad unless he converted to their faith. Which he would not. She ain't been to mass or confession in well over 50 years. And yet every census, down goes the C word. Now she might be the only person in the whole wide world who does that. But I doubt it. For many people, religious identity is more an expression of race or culture than a subscription to a canon of beliefs.

Ascribing motivation to religion, on the basis of a tick in a census form box, is a stretch.

Ascribing lack there of is an equal stretch. The point is that people claiming that the soviets and the Nazi's were atheists are full of shit. Whether or not any of this ties into motivation, is a whole new kettle of fish. That being said, Lots of people have been killed in the name of religion (the crusades, Islamic radical terrorism, etc...), but I have yet to hear of anyone killing in the name of atheism. I think that The Oatmeal put it best:

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Probably not. But if you add in Mao and Stalin's contribution outside of WWII you could make a stronger case. Maybe taking the Great War out the mix, or adding it to the other side of the equation might help, as well. Gott might be mit uns, but there is no way to paint that a religious war.

In my more controversial moments I like to point out that science has killed far more people than religion and atheism combined.

Post in thread that involves debate, fail to read previous post refuting the point of an earlier one. And by refuting, I mean nuking from orbit just to be sure that said earlier post is never fucking spoken of again.

WW2 probably triples/quadruples/etc any amount of deaths in relation to atheist rules versus all religious crusades combined the thousand years prior.

Probably not. But if you add in Mao and Stalin's contribution outside of WWII you could make a stronger case. Maybe taking the Great War out the mix, or adding it to the other side of the equation might help, as well. Gott might be mit uns, but there is no way to paint that a religious war.

In my more controversial moments I like to point out that science has killed far more people than religion and atheism combined.

Post in thread that involves debate, fail to read previous post refuting the point of an earlier one. And by refuting, I mean nuking from orbit just to be sure that said earlier post is never fucking spoken of again.

[quote="ghost55"[/quote]Addressed above. The fact that this or that person may or may not have dabbled with religion in their youth does not mean that all their subsequent actions are informed by that youthful searching. If bloodthirsty behaviour is common to both the religious and atheist alike, maybe we should be looking beyond that simplistic dichotomy for an answer.

I often come to threads that are four or five pages deep. Looking stupid bothers me way less than the aggravation of keeping track of what I want to say over a couple of hundred posts. Besides, we on page one, son. How hard can it be to keep track of the chronology?

If bloodthirsty behaviour is common to both the religious and atheist alike, maybe we should be looking beyond that simplistic dichotomy for an answer.

True to a certain extent, but people are tribal animals. For the most part we will commit mass murder only if the group being murdered is of a different "tribe." Nationalism fills the tribal role. So does religion.

Irreligion? Not so much. Has there ever been a case where irreligious people decided to genocide or wipe out religious people of the same nationality/tribe/whatever? Do atheists often persecute (and prosecute) religious people for being too devout? Not really.

I often come to threads that are four or five pages deep. Looking stupid bothers me way less than the aggravation of keeping track of what I want to say over a couple of hundred posts. Besides, we on page one, son. How hard can it be to keep track of the chronology?

I was going to try to write a witty riposte as a response, but I am floored by just how wrong your perception of what it means to be a good citizen of the fora is, so I am just going to ignore you from here on out. Or I will call in the wrath of someone better at administrating logical beatdowns then myself.

I often come to threads that are four or five pages deep. Looking stupid bothers me way less than the aggravation of keeping track of what I want to say over a couple of hundred posts. Besides, we on page one, son. How hard can it be to keep track of the chronology?

I as going to try to write a witty riposte as a response, but I am floored by just how wrong your perception of what it means to be a good citizen of the fora is, so I am just going to ignore you from here on out. Or I will call in the wrath of someone better at administrating logical beatdowns then myself.

Protip: Being a "good citizen of the fora" means to present an argument with civility and without arrogance, condescension and disrespect. You were the one that started in with the snarky remarks, so I wouldn't expect "the wrath of someone better at administering logical beatdowns" when you started out with being a total and utter dick in this thread.

Oh, and just so you know, I spent almost a decade as a moderator before you even joined. I think that I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be a "good forum citizen", and you most certainly aren't modeling that behavior.

I often come to threads that are four or five pages deep. Looking stupid bothers me way less than the aggravation of keeping track of what I want to say over a couple of hundred posts. Besides, we on page one, son. How hard can it be to keep track of the chronology?

I as going to try to write a witty riposte as a response, but I am floored by just how wrong your perception of what it means to be a good citizen of the fora is, so I am just going to ignore you from here on out. Or I will call in the wrath of someone better at administrating logical beatdowns then myself.

Protip: Being a "good citizen of the fora" means to present an argument with civility and without arrogance, condescension and disrespect. You were the one that started in with the snarky remarks, so I wouldn't expect "the wrath of someone better at administering logical beatdowns" when you started out with being a total and utter dick in this thread.

Oh, and just so you know, I spent almost a decade as a moderator before you even joined. I think that I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be a "good forum citizen", and you most certainly aren't modeling that behavior.

Sorry, I just found that his manner of posting were he triple-posted and refused to even consider reading the thread before saying something just sort of rubbed me the wrong way. That is what I get for engaging in political discussions during finals I suppose. There are some occasions (and this is one of them) were I really need to just not get so worked up about stuff that doesn't really matter that much.

TBH I am much more interested in discussing the pros and cons of religion (and various related topics) than forum etiquette. More than happy to leave the personals behind us and concentrate on the topic at hand.

Irreligion? Not so much. Has there ever been a case where irreligious people decided to genocide or wipe out religious people of the same nationality/tribe/whatever? Do atheists often persecute (and prosecute) religious people for being too devout? Not really.

Well, areligion don't have a whole heap of history, but communism is proudly areligious. And there's no getting around the fact that communist regimes hold 1st and 2nd place in the history of atrocities. Of course, we both realise that this is way more due to some elites clinging to power than any inbuilt nature of atheism. But once we acknowledge that, it becomes hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to religious cultures.

Irreligion? Not so much. Has there ever been a case where irreligious people decided to genocide or wipe out religious people of the same nationality/tribe/whatever? Do atheists often persecute (and prosecute) religious people for being too devout? Not really.

Well, areligion don't have a whole heap of history, but communism is proudly areligious. And there's no getting around the fact that communist regimes hold 1st and 2nd place in the history of atrocities. Of course, we both realise that this is way more due to some elites clinging to power than any inbuilt nature of atheism. But once we acknowledge that, it becomes hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to religious cultures.

Well, areligion don't have a whole heap of history, but communism is proudly areligious. And there's no getting around the fact that communist regimes hold 1st and 2nd place in the history of atrocities. Of course, we both realise that this is way more due to some elites clinging to power than any inbuilt nature of atheism. But once we acknowledge that, it becomes hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to religious cultures.

What's hypocritical is to equate religion with the absence of religion. The absence of religion can't possibly cause atrocities. Religion can.

Well the religions under discussion all advocate peace and love. So ascribing the less benign behaviour of the adherents of those religions to the respective religions in question is no more defensible than blaming atheism for the bad behaviour of ahteists.

Also, psychopaths I have known do tend to cite the absence of an overseeing deity as a reason to do whatever selfish shit takes their fancy. Ain't what keeps me on the straight and narrow. But it does kind of pull the plug on the notion that atheism plays no part in any atrocities whatsoever.

Yep - with many exceptions and qualifications. And the exceptions and qualifications (e.g. "love the sinner, hate the sin") can directly lead to "less benign behaviour". Christian "love" is often worse than hate.

Quote:

Also, psychopaths I have known do tend to cite the absence of an overseeing deity as a reason to do whatever selfish shit takes their fancy.

I think it's functionally equivalent to the belief that the overseeing deity is on your side, so it doesn't make atheism worse.

Irreligion? Not so much. Has there ever been a case where irreligious people decided to genocide or wipe out religious people of the same nationality/tribe/whatever? Do atheists often persecute (and prosecute) religious people for being too devout? Not really.

Well, areligion don't have a whole heap of history, but communism is proudly areligious. And there's no getting around the fact that communist regimes hold 1st and 2nd place in the history of atrocities. Of course, we both realise that this is way more due to some elites clinging to power than any inbuilt nature of atheism. But once we acknowledge that, it becomes hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to religious cultures.

True, but thinking about it in religious/non-religious context is painting it in terms that are too restrictive. It's not really about religious/non-religious. The only way we think that way is because organized religions are, historically speaking, the only human organizations with the power and resources to commit horrible acts on such a grand scale. With the rise of secular nationalism since the Enlightenment, the state took a large amount of that power for themselves.

It's not like atheistic people in modern society don't have the ability or desire to do terrible things. They're human, just like religious people are human. But what that requires is 1)A dogma and 2) A power structure. If you have those two things, eventually human nature will lead them to be used for ill will. USSR/China are the 1st and 2nd place in the history of atrocities because they had nations of hundreds of millions of people that were all *strictly* controlled by their dogma and aligned behind a single power structure (the state).

My point to the whole thing being that sure, atheists can kill and hurt people on a grand scale. But what atheists *usually* lack is commitment to a rigid, dogmatic organization with the power to do so. There are very few religious people that are not committed to that sort of organization. The Humanist Society doesn't take a tithing or have a holy book.